Catholics: Smile but don’t be fooled!
Pro-life Catholics like me are smiling about the chutzpah our bishops finally showed a few weeks ago when they got the abortion funding provision removed from the Pelosi health bill. Reportedly the bishops convinced Representative Stupak (D-MI) and 3 dozen other pro-life Democrats to vote against the bill unless Pelosi took this action. Some pundits say this is the strongest influence that the Catholic Church has ever exerted on Congress, and it surely stung pro-abortion Democrats because some of them are now calling on the IRS to revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status.
But even though we should celebrate that victory, we must remain vigilant, visible, and vocal because the pro-death Democrats will not give up. They are in thrall to Planned Parenthood, which wants to include abortion in socialized healthcare so they can finally achieve Margaret Sanger’s goal of eliminating “undesirables” before they are born. It’s not hard to imagine a government health care counselor withholding prenatal care from a poor black woman but offering her a free abortion.
That’s why we shouldn’t let the bishops’ victory lull us into believing that they’ve solved the problem of federally-funded abortions. In fact, they may have exacerbated the problem by enabling Pelosi’s socialized medicine bill to move forward. It will be interesting to see if the bishops continue to fight this battle in the Senate, where Harry Reid’s bill not only preserves federal abortion funding but also introduces a monthly surcharge on insurance premiums to get the funds. And don’t forget that the Senate and House bills will go through a reconciliation process behind closed doors, where abortion will be treated as a bargaining chip and the bishops will have little influence.
The simple fact is that any health reform bill passed while the Democrats control Congress will most likely mandate government support for elective abortion regardless of religious opposition, the pro-life lobby, the Hyde Amendment, or Obama’s promises. As Obama’s approval rating plummets among moderates, he needs to cement the support of his left-wing, pro-abortion base, who demand his compliance to their agenda.
Unfortunately, the bishops don’t seem to realize that the deck is stacked against them. Prominent Democrats like Pelosi, Durbin, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Landrieu, Sibelius, and our own McCaskill are publicly pro-abortion while at the same time claiming to be devout Catholics. Less illustrious members of the Church like me continue to wonder why only a few bishops have mustered the courage to publicly criticize these death merchants who are Catholics in name only. Apparently the bishops have forgotten Christ’s condemnation of religious leaders who give grave scandal to their flocks. By appearing to approve of or at least tolerate hypocritical Catholic politicians, the bishops have made it possible for many Catholic voters to believe it’s morally OK for them to support pro-abortion candidates. This is grave scandal indeed! Jesus didn’t shrink from criticizing corrupt Scribes and Pharisees even though it cost him his life. By criticizing pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the bishops would only be risking the Church’s tax-exempt status, and that would be a worthy fight to take to the Supreme Court.
But enough about abortion in the health care bill, because I don’t think that’s the most serious problem facing the bishops. In fact, a cynic might say that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has been using abortion as a lightning rod to distract us from the socialist agenda they’ve foolishly promoted for more than 30 years. I might be way off base here, but the evidence is pretty convincing. Consider these points:
- The Democratic Party has promoted a socialist agenda at least since the time of FDR, and more then 30 years ago they enshrined abortion as a fundamental plank in their platform. Any student of Catholic principles would expect the bishops to condemn this plank and instruct their parishioners about the moral imperative to not support the Democratic Party as long as that plank remains. However, USCCB has repeatedly pulled its punches, saying that each parishioner must make a personal decision based on squishy moral equivalence arguments. For instance, if your Democrat candidate supports a minimum wage increase and is silent on abortion, some bishops say you could vote for him in the interest of “social justice.” Never mind that after the typical Democrat reaches Congress, he votes the party line not only on social justice issues but also on abortion. This tells me that bishops are inclined to look favorably on the Democrat Party’s socialist agenda while they wink at its pro-abortion position.
- The American Catholic Church was rooted in the European immigrant laborer class of the 19th century. That’s why bishops of that time fought the good fight for workers’ rights and supported the labor union movement – totally appropriate causes for the Church at that time. However, long after work conditions improved and labor unions became corrupt, the Church continued to see itself as a champion for the ever expanding cause of social justice, often expressed in vaguely Marxist tones that called upon the government to implement coercive solutions such as Social Security and Medicare.
- A casual review of USCCB position papers shows a strong bias in favor of socialized medicine, although the bishops continue to call it a “moral imperative” and “social justice.” For example, in the pastoral letter Health and Health Care (November 19, 1981), the bishops say, “…we call for the development of a national health insurance program. It is the responsibility of the federal government to establish a comprehensive health care system that will ensure a basic level of health care for all Americans.” Since then the USCCB has repeated that message many times, and recently they’ve even said that health insurance (not just emergency health care) for illegal immigrants is a moral imperative.
Clearly the USCCB is comfortable giving the government the responsibility for our health care system, even though that would inevitably reduce our liberty, drive costs higher, and drive quality of service lower. I’ve reviewed many, but not all, USCCB health care position papers, and I’ve found no serious discussion of free market alternatives even though Republicans in Congress and many experts have proposed numerous solutions that would be much more in the spirit of our Constitution.
The USCCB’s strong support of socialism is both understandable and puzzling. It’s understandable because many Church organizations, such as monasteries and convents, are socialistic. Men and women in these religious orders give up all of their worldly possessions and live a communal life of shared service and sacrifice. On the other hand, the USCCB position is puzzling because every time a country has taken the socialist path, the Church has ultimately suffered.
There’s a simple reason for this dichotomy. Religious communities work because they are relatively small, membership is voluntary, and all members have the same life goals. Socialist countries fail because populations are large, membership is not voluntary, and citizens have many different goals. History shows that socialism inevitably leads to tyranny, because that’s the only way to homogenize the diverse citizenry. If you can’t bend your will and adjust your goals to fit the monastic life, the religious order will ask you to leave. If you can’t conform to the whims of a socialist government, you will be invited to the gulag or the firing squad. In my terminology, the monastic life is “cooperative socialism” and the Cuban life is “coercive socialism.” The Democratic health reform bill in any form will no doubt require a great deal of coercion.
Finally, I would like the bishops to explain why they so blithely want to put the United States on a socialist path that strikes at fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs. I was always taught and firmly believe that each of us is formed in the image of the Creator, and we are endowed with three fundamental characteristics that predate humanity’s fall from grace: human intelligence, free will, and conscience. I believe that God intends humans to live free lives in which they can make intelligent choices guided by a conscience that reflects God’s natural law. I also believe that the United States was founded in view of those essential human characteristics, which our forefathers recognized as the three legs of liberty.
For some mysterious reason the USCCB supports the tyranny of socialism over the Judeo-Christian concept of liberty spelled out in our Constitution. Rather than fight the Democrat health care bill because it promotes abortion, shouldn’t the bishops fight any bill that promotes socialism even if it bans abortion funding?
Most Popular Posts
Stuff
Polls
Loading ...
The reason that the USCCB accepts socialized healthcare is that the Church has enumerated healthcare as a “human right” in its Social Teaching. Ever since at least 1963, in the encyclical Pacem et Terris (Peace on Earth), a very wide variety of items are said to be rights, “Beginning our discussion of the rights of the human person, we see that everyone has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services.” (Pacem et Terris, 11)
Yet, I beleive that the Church, in her Social Teaching, has been misguided since then because that same document also states that “[t]he natural rights with which we have been dealing are, however, inseparably connected, in the very person who is there subject, with just as many respective duties; and rights as well a s duties find their source, their sustenance and their inviolability in the natural law which grants or enjoins them.” (Pacem et Terris, 28)
One of the reasons I have heard given for this is a Catholic notion that, since man was not utterly destroyed by the fall of Adam, there is every person a natural yearning to become a social being, and, therefore, a natural altruism to support the Common Good. Therefore, it is good for the Government to do what is altruistic, regardless of the feelings of the individuals.
My problem with this is the tension with the individual conscience. To force an individual, through governmental action, to support a system that person found morally reprehensible in their formed and informed conscience (that is, in that place internally where the individual meets God stripped of all pretense) is an attack on the freedom of the individual and, therefore, is a much greater wrong than any good the system may provide communally.
It comes down, once again, to the meaning of liberty. Is liberty for one to do as one wishes with their own person and fruit of their own labor, or is it to do with another and the fruit of another’s labor? Both definitions have been used for “liberty”, but they are categorically mutually exclusive.
Thanks for your cogent comment. I agree completely.
When I read complicated encyclicals such as Pacem et Terris, I realize even more the great thinking and simple truths embodied in our Declaration of Independence when it proclaims the fundamental human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the basic Judeo-Christian values that the Church should champion.
Following the principles of the Declaration, the US Constitution defined a framework that has proven to be the best governmental structure to safeguard these values. The Popes and bishops would do well to consult our country’s founding documents for guidance in how much and how little to expect from a government.
Jesus gave us the wonderful Sermon on the Mount in which he described how we are to behave with regard to our fellow man. Clearly he was telling us to use our God-given gifts of intelligence, free will, and conscience in order to reach our eternal reward. Never did he exhort us to create governments that would coerce others into living the life of the Beatitudes. Above all else, Jesus wants each of us to come to him as an act of free will, just as he freely chose to die for us.
Following Christ’s advice, the Church traditionally encouraged its members to practice virtue through voluntary service organizations such as religious orders, hospitals and hospices, food and clothing centers, orphanages, and so on. But reviewing the actions of American bishops throughout most of my life, it seems as if they have thrown in the towel on these traditions. Instead, they seem to be promoting the coercive socialist agenda of the Democratic Party, which is very much at odds with the teachings of Jesus as well as the Judeo-Christian ethics of our founding fathers.
As a life-long Catholic with a firm belief in Christian principles, I don’t intend to leave the Church. However, I sometimes feel like a life-long Democrat who realizes that he didn’t leave his Party, but his Party left him. I’d like to see the USCCB get back in sync with faithful members who believe that liberty, not coercive socialism, is the way of Jesus.
– PlasticEyes
Libs like Michael Moore think voting to move money from one group of people to another will buy them the keys to heaven. Taking money from one person under the threat of levies or imprisonment (i.e tax collection) and giving it to another (wealth redistribution) is not a Christian principle. The libs think this graft, corruption and inefficient wealth redistribution (like Mary Poppins) will be easier to swallow with a spoonful of sugar called hope and change.
Voluntary giving (i.e charitable concern for your fellow man)is a basic Christian principle, but big government proponents find it easier to vote once a year for their favorite lib than to open their hearts and wallets on a regular basis by voluntary giving to their favorite charity.
Make no mistake. The Health Care Bill has nothing to do with helping your fellow man, but rather it’s sole covert goal is to heap unmanageable welfare reform on a caring but unwitting capitalistic republic, for the sole intent of creating economic chaos. Desperate for change, the liberal drones will vote for radical change in the form of an unsustainable socialist democracy and hope it works.
Stupak (STUPID) Amendment and (STUPID)Republicans
Democrat Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan won the support of the Republicans and 64 Democrats for his amendment regarding abortion. Stupak’s language prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies. It does allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or imperils the health or life of the mother.
Without the Stupak (Stupid) amendment the House healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote. This healthcare bill should have gone down to defeat; it is wrong for America. Yet, Nancy Pelosi gloated over the passage of the bill. It is all about control and the loss of freedom. It is loaded with tax increases and the so-called benefits to the plan do not go into effect until 2013. The cost of the plan will be in excess of a trillion dollars. Also, what gives them the right to force people to purchase healthcare insurance under the penalty of fine and imprisonment? I believe that would be unconstitutional.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House said “I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there.” So they put in an amendment in order to pass this atrocity only to remove the amendment from the final bill.
Republican Leader John Boehner asked Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D- NY), and Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA), “If the House is to pass the Stupak amendment and this bill is to pass tonight and there is a vote in the conference committee on this issue, would you guarantee me that you will support the House-passed bill?” They all said they won’t guarantee they’ll support keeping Pro-Life language in the Final Health Care bill. SO WHY VOTE FOR IT?
Mr. Boehner, knowing that voting to pass this amendment was just a ruse to get the Healthcare bill passed; why did you and the Republicans vote for it? There were Democrats who said without the Stupak amendment this monstrosity of a healthcare bill would have gone down to defeat. It does not make sense to me when you say you are against this healthcare bill and then vote for an amendment that basically guarantees the bill will pass.
Greg Zotta
Bribery or Politics?
If the healthcare legislation is so GREAT, why are the Democrats voting on it in the dark of night on a Saturday night? Why are they not presenting the facts of the bill to the American people? Is it because the numbers do not add up? The Democrats say that there is a need to pass this legislation today because thousands of people are dying because of the lack of healthcare. Yet the benefits do not go into effect until 4 years from now, so by their calculations are they going to let thousands more of Americans die? Why do they want to put people in jail for not wanting to buy health insurance? Would that even be constitutional? Why do they have to bribe certain Senators in order to get them to vote for it? Is Eric Holder going to investigate this bribe? Will the news media begin doing their job and expose this fraud? Why is it that politicians say one thing but do another, Joe Liebermann? Will the American people stand up and be heard to stop this monstrosity? These are just some questions that should be answered before proceeding with this legislation.
Greg Zotta